6 ms·
You could argue that the government agency is at fault. 1 for their breach, 2 more importantly: for mandating that personal information get handed over without
by hirako2000 3d ago
You could argue that the government agency is at fault. 1 for their breach, 2 more importantly: for mandating that personal information get handed over without an official court order which would have involved a far more stringent process with multiple parties involved.
- tmhrtly 3d agoMy understanding of the situation is that no government agency actually requested data at all, just that someone impersonated a government email address and this was enough for Revolut to reply with the requested data.
- rawland 3d agoFrom the PR statement, it's unclear if a gov. agency was hacked or it was a phishing attempt, from my point of view. Both cases are still not enough, even for a greasy spoon.
- olejorgenb 3d agoIf the Revolut know the agency was hacked it surely would be in their interest to say so (unless the agency hold them at "gunpoint")
- cluckindan 3d agoIt was probably an AI agent that handed it over.
- hirako2000 3d agoThe government did request the data. And since the announcement, it has requested highly sensitive data again, and to keep such data, backed by threats of violent repercussions, that businesses cease to operate or to even exist. That's a dangerous kind of threat to be making, and to act upon. for information that should remain private let alone owned by the bank itself.
- epolanski 3d ago> The government did request the data. What's your source? That is not what the news says. Also, you know you can easily impersonate any email? That's a flaw of the email protocol.